Chicago Medical Malpractice Attorney Blog

An Illinois birth injury lawsuit involving claims of medical negligence by John H. Stroger Hospital employees was settled for $6.25 million. Because Stroger Hospital is a Cook County hospital, the Illinois medical malpractice lawsuit was brought against Cook County itself and not the hospital. Maria Rodriguez, as mother and next friend of Angel Gutierrez, a minor v. County of Cook, No. 07 L 13386.

In a traditional medical malpractice claim defense attorneys representing the hospital or doctor are typically hired directly by either the hospital or insurance company. However, when the facility is either a state-funded institution, like Stroger Hospital, then the defense attorneys are from the state's attorneys office. Thomas Rieck, assistant Cook County state's attorney, represented the defendants' claims in Rodriguez. Another important wrinkle in this setting is the fact that there is a statute, the Local Governmental and Government Employees Tort Immunity Act, 745 ILCS 10/1-101, et seq. (Illinois Tort Immunity Act), which essentially allows the possibility of recovery against a Cook County hospital only if the hospital were found to be negligent in the treatment of a patient, but not liable if the hospital chose not to order tests or it was negligent because it misdiagnosed a patient. Michigan Avenue National Bank v. Cook County, 191 Ill. 2d 493 (2000) is the leading case interpreting the Illinois statute on immunity.

The plaintiff's birth injury complaint alleged that the doctors at Stroger Hospital failed to respond adequately to the fetal heart rate decelerations at birth. Instead of recognizing the need for a quick delivery, the doctors attempted to correct the decelerations through the use of oxygen, amnioinfusion, and by changing the mother's position. However, none of these measures were effective.

Continue reading " Chicago Birth Injury Settlement of $6.25 Million Reached in Cerebral Palsy Case - Rodriguez v. County of Cook " »

Several studies have recently investigated the dangers of different radiology scans and the possibility of radiation overexposure. While many of these radiology scans are important diagnostic tools, research has suggested that many physicians are unaware of the dangers of several different scans, or else are poorly informed about the inherent risks.

Radiology scans are an important tool in screening for breast cancer and allowed physicians to diagnose breast cancer much earlier, thereby increasing the cancer patient's hope of survival. However, depending on the type of radiology exam used the degree of radiation exposure varies drastically. For example, a typical mammogram increases a woman's risk of developing breast cancer by 1.3 times per every 1,000 women.

A mammogram is the standard diagnostic exam to diagnose breast cancer, however, there are additional radiology exams that doctors might order if the mammogram fails to provide a clear diagnosis. Of of these exams, the breast-specific gamma imaging (BSGI) increases a woman's risk of developing breast cancer by 20 to 30 times and the positron emissions mammography (PEM) increases the risk by 23 times. Also, while radiation exposure during a traditional mammograms only increases the risk of developing breast cancer, the BSGI and PEM also increase the risk of cancer in other major organs, i.e. the bladder, gallbladder, kidneys, etc.

Continue reading " Breast Cancer Screen Should Consider Breast Imaging Radiation Risks According to Medical Journals " »

An Illinois Appellate Court reviewed an Illinois medical malpractice case to determine whether references to the defendant doctors' military service had prejudiced the jury against the plaintiff and contributed to its not guilty verdict. After reviewing the facts of the case, the court held that the comments had not prejudiced the jury and were "harmless". Pavnica v. Edwin Veguilla, et al., No. 3-09-0065.

The plaintiff's medical malpractice complaint alleged that Dr. Veguilla, an emergency room physician, had failed to prescribe anaerobic antibiotics when the plaintiff presented to the ER with an injured toe. The plaintiff's medical history was complicated by a long history of diabetes and immunosuppressive medications he was taking after receiving a kidney and pancreas transplant. All diabetic patients realize the importance of checking your feet on a regular basis for potential cuts and injury as diabetic patients can easily develop diseases in their feet that could lead to gangrene.

Continue reading " Illinois Medical Malpractice Not Guilty Verdict Reviewed For Potential Prejudicial Comments- Verdict Affirmed in Pavnica v. Edwin Veguilla, et al. " »

When analyzing cases for possible Illinois medical malpractice, sometimes the resulting injury is a reasonable outcome of the procedure and as such does not quality as medical malpractice. However, sometimes you encounter a medical malpractice lawsuit where not only was the resulting injury not a foreseeable outcome, but it could have easily been avoided.

Lauro Ortiz's medical malpractice lawsuit is such a case where the resulting injury would not have occurred if not for medical negligence. The kidney transplant malpractice lawsuit resulted in a $6 million settlement from Rush University Medical Center.

Ortiz presented for a kidney transplant at Rush University Medical Center. The 39 year-old had been born with only one kidney and also suffered from diabetes. At the time Ortiz was on dialysis and was hoping that the kidney transplant would free him from the regular dialysis treatments and allow him to live a more normal life.

Continue reading " Illinois Kidney Transplant Case Results in Brain Damage: Chicago Hospital Settles for $6 Million " »

Oftentimes cancerous tumors are recognized in the process of investigating another medical problem. For example, a woman presents complaining of weight loss and an exam reveals breast cancer. Because early diagnosis of cancer can drastically improve the patient's survival rate it is important that physicians capitalize on these opportunities.

In Tariq v. Naperville Radiologist, S.C., et al., 09 L 156, the plaintiff brought an Illinois medical malpractice lawsuit against Edward Hospital and its radiologist for failure to diagnose cancer. The plaintiff claimed that the radiologist had failed to comment on an area of abnormality in her abdominal area on a chest CT scan. The CT scan was being taken as part of the plaintiff's screening for TB and was not told anything about the abnormal results.

Over the course of the next year the plaintiff began to experience weight loss and became fatigued. She returned for further workup, at which point a CT showed a 16 cm. abdominal tumor. In addition, the tumor had metastasized to other organs, including the spleen, stomach, pancreas, and colon.

Continue reading " Illinois Radiologist Error Results in $1.7 Million Settlement - Tariq v. Naperville Radiologist, S.C., et al. " »